Pages

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

From Spider-Man to God-Man

According to humanitarian unitarianism, Jesus was just a man. That, however, generates an acute dilemma, because the NT ascribes distinctively divine powers and prerogatives to Jesus. A "human" Jesus who created the universe, created angels, created life on earth, can process millions of prayers a day in hundreds of foreign languages, who can read everyone's mind to be their eschatological judge, and so on. To defend his mere humanity, unitarians must deify Jesus! Quite a paradox!

The idea of upgrading humans to give them divine abilities and prerogatives is nothing new: the traditional term is apotheosis. That's common in polytheism, as well as Mormonism. It's ironic that unitarians resort to polytheistic principles to defend unitarianism.

Steve, some time you should look up the meaning of "paradox." It ain't just anything you find surprising.

What you guys are assuming, it is that it is impossible for the omniscient and omnipotent and perfectly free God to authorize someone to forgive sins on his behalf, or to judge on his behalf. Equally, you assume God can't give a man much higher levels of power and knowledge.

Well, those are whopper assumptions! Normally, the way you prove an impossibility claim is to how how the scenario in question involves or implies a contradiction. So by all means, try to do that.

Not as much fun as mocking, I know, but if you actually want to have an argument, there is your way forward. I'll wait.

Must unitarians "deify" Jesus? You can put it that way if you want - we don't - but in any case it's not "deity" in the sense of having all the essential attributes that God has.

Dale wrote:---What you guys are assuming, it is that it is impossible for the omniscient and omnipotent and perfectly free God to authorize someone to forgive sins on his behalf....---

What does that even mean? Suppose I punch you for no reason, and then you say, "I authorize you to ask Steve for forgiveness for punching me in the face." What's the point of that? What does it do?

Is it because you think I might find it more palpable to ask Steve for your forgiveness than to ask you directly? But if so, wouldn't that mean that I still harbor ill will toward you--the same kind of ill will that lead me to punch you for no reason in the first place in this scenario?

Am I somehow barred from going to you directly for forgiveness such that you have to work through an emissary? Are you incapable of forgiving me directly? But if so, how could that change simply because I ask forgiveness via an emissary? In other words, how is it actual forgiveness if you'd only listen to me via Steve?

On the other hand, if I *could* go to you directly and ask for forgiveness and receive it, then what purpose would Steve serve in this transaction? Why authorize another person to accept forgiveness on your behalf if it is not NEEDED? If it is needed, why is it needed?

Of course, I'm using us as an analogy here, but the question really is: what reason would God need to have Christ be an intercessor such that Christ could forgive sins on behalf of God? Either God could just directly forgive sins or He cannot. If He cannot, WHY not? And how is it that Jesus, being only a man, could fit that role and not, say, Steve? What makes Jesus so special?

"Of course, I'm using us as an analogy here, but the question really is: [1] what reason would God need to have Christ be an intercessor such that Christ could forgive sins on behalf of God? Either God could just directly forgive sins or He cannot. If He cannot, WHY not? [2] And how is it that Jesus, being only a man, could fit that role and not, say, Steve? What makes Jesus so special?"